With more than two million page views and more than 4,500 items, this blog provides news and commentary on public policy, business and economic issues related to the $3 billion California stem cell agency, officially known as the California Institute for Regenerative Medicine(CIRM). David Jensen, a retired California newsman, has published this blog since January 2005. His email address is djensen@californiastemcellreport.com.

Monday, August 24, 2015

One of the stories dealt with a matter that could affect as many as 27 million
people. The other involved less than 100.

One story involved creation of important linkages that could help
speed up the transformation of stem cells into cures. The other concerned little more
than a change of address.

The story about the change of address was displayed on the
front page of the largest circulation newspaper in Northern California, the San
Francisco Chronicle, and appeared in many other outlets. (See here and here.)
Not a word was reported in the mainstream media about the development that
could affect the 27 million people afflicted with arthritis in this country.(See
here and here.)

For many persons, such disparities in news are puzzling and frustrating, not to mention disturbing. Sort of like trying to find meaning by reading the entrails of animals.

Stem cell research is exceedingly
important, the reasoning goes, and how can those dolts in the press ignore it?
More specifically, the situation poses a continuing challenge for California’s stem cell agency,
which has a hard time breaking into ink except when it moves its headquarters a
few miles from San Francisco to Oakland.

So how do editors and reporters make the decisions that lead
to such disparities? The first thing to remember is that -- like of all us -- the
news media are most comfortable doing the things they have always done. The treatment of these two stories follows a pattern that has been established over
many decades. Newsies like “horse race”
stories – ones with clear winners and losers. In this case, San Francisco "lost" the headquarters of the stem cell agency and Oakland "won" it.

The move also fit with an ongoing news theme – skyrocketing office
space costs in San Francisco – coupled with high housing costs and the current conflict between the impact of high tech on the city vs. the desire to return to a
past that is perceived by many as more benign.

Additionally, the stem cell agency headquarters story is fundamentally local as opposed to the arthritis
research, which is not solely about the San Francisco Bay Area.

The tale was easy to report. It did not require weeks of digging or lengthy interviews to understand the science. The story was basically handed to the news media as a result of
the Aug. 17 item on the California Stem Cell Report, although the move has been
around publicly at least since July 23.

At our request, one longtime observer of the California stem scene, who must remain anonymous, elaborated on the situation.

“Well, you write a blog that catches the eye of a
reporter/editor. It concerns a state agency that was lured to the city to help
kick start biotech, to be a lynch pin, if you like, for a new regional research
base. Ten years after arriving the agency is a victim of its own success, or
the city’s success, or just the economy (choose your story line here), so you
have a story about a state agency moving, a city that is experiencing soaring
rents losing businesses like this, and another neighboring city that stands to
benefit. You can then focus on the biotech angle - 'is the city doing enough to
keep businesses here' - or the people angle or any angle except the only one
that really matters, the science.

“That results in a front page article on the local newspaper
– they love to put local stories on the front because it is more attractive to
potential readers, and put all the national/international wire stories inside –
which then leads other local news outlets to follow along. Why the delay?
Because most media outlets don’t have specialist reporters anymore so they rely
on some other news outlet, usually newspapers, to dig up something interesting, and they can then follow along. Radio first usually, they are rapid responders
and can get stories on the air very quickly, followed by other online media and
then TV.”

We should add that the treatment of the two stories has lessons that apply to
dealing with the media generally. If
researchers want to get their stories out – as they should – the first thing to
consider is the needs of the media. Work into the existing
framework. Don’t try to create a new one. That may take longer than getting a
stem cell treatment approved by the FDA.

Find a compelling angle, one that can be summarized in a
couple of sentences. Speak English. Avoid jargon and technical-speak. Talking about a “chondrogenic drug candidate
targeting resident mesenchymal stem cells” will never make the front page.
Talking about a relatively simple therapy, the first of its kind for arthritis, has a much better chance.

Don’t expect to find relatively well-informed science
reporters at news outlets. The few that once existed are mostly gone. Be a
guide for editors and reporters and help them along by providing material
that answers all their basic questions.

Finally, lower your expectations. The financial crunch on the
news media means less space for science stories and fewer reporters to write
them. But don’t be discouraged. A good story, properly presented can find a
home at some point in the media. But it may not be tomorrow.

About Me

The California Stem Cell Report is the only nongovernmental website devoted solely to the $3 billion California stem cell agency. The report is published by David Jensen, who worked for 22 years for The Sacramento Bee in a variety of editing positions, including executive business editor and special projects editor. He was the primary editor on the 1992 Pulitzer Prize-winning series, "The Monkey Wars" by Deborah Blum, which dealt with opposition to research on primates. Jensen served as a press aide in the 1974 campaign and first administration of Gov. Jerry Brown. (Time served: two years and one week.) He writes from his sailboat on the west coast of Mexico with occasional visits to land. Jensen began writing about the stem cell agency in 2005, noting that it is an unprecedented effort that uniquely combines big science, big business, big academia, big politics, religion, ethics and morality as well as life and death. The California Stem Cell Report has been identified as one of the best stem cell sites on the Internet. Its readership includes the media (both mainstream and science), a wide range of academic/research institutions globally, the NIH and California policy makers.